Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The fight of Ontario paralegals for authorization to provide legal representation in certain family law proceedings is heating up again, as noted in an editorial report today from the Toronto Star's Carol Goar:

Almost two-thirds of Ontarians who appear in family court are now unrepresented. They can’t afford a lawyer and — thanks to the new law — they can longer use a paralegal for uncontested divorces, child custody arrangements or financial support orders.

...What is clear — even to the Law Society — is that Ontarians aren’t getting the help they need to resolve life-disrupting family law problems. Its own research (the Law Society is midway through a study of unmet legal needs) shows lower- and middle-income parents are priced out of the market for legal services.

These people used to patronize paralegals. Now they can’t. And the Law Society isn’t offering them an affordable alternative.

The government promised more choice. The Law Society delivered less. Ontarians deserve an explanation.

While the motion has garnered predictable opposition from interest groups like Ontario's Family Lawyers' Association, anyone who has been anywhere near an Ontario Court of Justice recently cannot help but have noticed the overwhelming number of unrepresented litigants in the hallways and courtrooms - often bogging down the court's time and docket with missing paperwork, misguided submissions, and a general confusion regarding appropriate decorum in the courts.

Paralegal representation would help alleviate this increasing connundrum.

While paralegals are not lawyers, they are now wholly regulated by the Law Society of Upper Canada.

Regulation means accountability. The paralegal profession is no longer the wild, wild west.

The paralegals' request is limited and moderate - they do not seek opportunity to represent Ontarians in contested family law matters in the federal Ontario Superior Court of Justice system, which has exclusive jurisdiction to address family property issues.

It is in the interests of the Ontario public that a highly skilled paralegal profession be developed and encouraged - and that includes fostering professional awareness and responsibility among paralegals as to when they must serve their clients' interests by referring complex matters out to counsel.

Access to justice must be more than a slogan. If the only alternative to representation by a lawyer in this Province's family courts is self-representation, many litigants will have no choice but to proceed on their own.

If family law is too complex for trained paralegals, as some contend, just imagine the rubic's cube it represents to the average, unrepresented parent or separated spouse, especially where English is not that individual's first language.

Who is left to pick up the pieces?

Ontario Court judges, of course.

The naysayers must recognize reality - some people simply cannot afford to retain lawyers. They will not come to us.

They deserve another, accesible option in the provincial family court system.

There is no reason why the Law Society cannot develop a family law CLE accreditation process for paralegals - one that will safely permit our statutory regulator to unlock the gates of Ontario's provincial domestic courts for specifically accredited and qualified licenced paralegals.

The critical question is how paralegal family court access should be controlled and monitored. This question deserves study.

The Ontario Human Rights Tribunal has ordered National Money Mart Company to pay $30,000 in compensation to a former, one-year employee of the company who had been subjected to ongoing, serious sexual harassment by her workplace supervisor.

With the Ontario Court of Appeal's June 25, 2009 ruling in Slepenkova v. Ivanov, it is now clear that the nearly-universal pronouncements by management lawyers as to the death of Wallace damages after Honda and Keays may have been a bit premature.

In Slepenkova, the Ontario appellate court upheld a two-month notice extension for an employer's bad faith termination, even though no evidence was led at trial as to the specific damages the employee directly incurred as a result of the bad faith. This appeared to place the trial Judge's decision at odds with the new Wallace test set out in Honda.

About WISE LAW BLOG

Wise Law Blogfeatures timely articles on legal developments in Canada and the United States, along with commentary on Canadian politics, American politics, technology and noteworthy current affairs.

Launched on April 5, 2005, Wise Law Blog also highlights key decisions of Canadian courts, with focus on Ontario Family Law, Ontario Employment Law and other areas of interest.

Garry J. Wise is primary contributor to Wise Law Blog. He is a Canadian litigation lawyer who practices with Wise Law Office,Toronto. He is a graduate of Osgoode Hall Law School and was called to the Ontario Bar in 1986.

Garry's colleagues at Wise Law Office, as well as occasional guest bloggers, also contribute to Wise Law Blog.

Follow Us:

Follow by Email

Terms of Use

The articles and comments on Wise Law Blog are intended to provide general information on current issues and developments in the law. They are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not rely upon or act on information in this, or any blog without seeking legal advice as to the matters of specific concern to them. No solicitor and client relationship is created or can be created by accessing, reading or commenting upon any post at this site.

Wise Law Blog is not responsible for and does not necessarily agree with the contents of comments posted by readers of this blog. Such comments represent the personal views of the commenters only, and are included on this blog in the interest of promoting public discourse and a free exchange of ideas. We reserve the right to decline or delete any comment posted on this site which we, in our sole and absolute discretion, deem inappropriate for publication on this site.

CBC | Canadian News

CBC | Technology & Science News

CityNews: Top Stories

MSNBC.com: Top MSNBC Headlines

BBC News | News Front Page | World Edition

Wise Law Blog, (c)2005-2010 Garry J. Wise and Wise Law Office, Toronto. All rights are reserved. Permission for reproduction and/or republication of any portion of this publication for solely non-commercial purposes is hereby granted provided any such non-commercial use shall include: (a) credit to the original author(s) thereof; (b) printable, embedded hyperlink to original Wise Law Blog post url. Reproduction and republication of any portion of this publication for commercial purposes is expressly prohibited without the permission in writing of the author(s).